search_signals

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral constraint: the server caps limit at 200. This is beyond the annotations but not rich in other behavioral details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the limit cap is a concise added detail. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple search tool, the description covers the essential scope and a key constraint. Annotations provide safety context, and an output schema exists, so missing return details are not critical. It could add alternative tool references, but given its simplicity, this is nearly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains that query searches signal names and comments, and mentions the limit cap. However, it does not explicitly describe the dbc_path parameter or provide details about the limit's default/range beyond the cap. The parameter names are self-explanatory, giving partial credit.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Search') and the resource ('signal names and comments across a DBC'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_messages or get_message, which are retrieval-oriented rather than search-oriented.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or contrast with sibling tools such as list_messages or signal_timeseries. The description implies a search use case but lacks direct 'when to use' or 'when not to use' advice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.